Cultural values from managers’and academicians’ perspectives:

the case of TurkeyMehmet Yusuf Yahyagil and Ayse Begum Otken

Department of Business Administration,Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Yeditepe University,

Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to portray societal/cultural values of Turkish people asperceived by managers and academicians. The study also aims to provide an understanding of thecultural context of the Turkish society in terms of socio-cultural dimensions such as high and lowcontext, monochronic vs polychronic, self-determined, and temporal orientation.

Design/methodology/approach – Instead of using Schwartz’s 56-item questionnaire, the authorsused seven cultural and ten individual dimensions as individual items. Cultural values were capturedfrom managers’ and academicians’ perspectives by changing the frame of reference from self to others.The questionnaire was designed for two different age groups to find the magnitude of change inconnection with cultural values.

Findings – Results indicate that Turkey can be defined as a conservative country. Hierarchy isranked as the second most important polar dimension, and the order of cultural values indicates areverse direction compared to the findings of similar studies with reference to European countries. Italso deserves to emphasize the fact that the younger group of respondents is much more conservativeand seeks more power over people and resources than the older group of respondents.

Originality/value – This paper, to some extent, may serve as a guide in reflecting today’s culturalvalues in Turkey. It also makes a modest contribution to the relevant literature due to both theportraying cultural values of Turkish people, and the usage of methodological considerations for datacollection purposes.

Keywords Schwartz’s value system theory, Values, Cultural patternings, Turkish culture, Turkey

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe concept of globalization is an ambiguous one, but is also important due to itsdramatic and somewhat radical effects on societies and organizations. Globalizationcan be thought of as an invisible force for change in each and every aspect of people’sdaily lives. Every country has different interests and opinions related to globalization,due to the differences in political and economic conditions, historical background,culture, and religion. It is not an avoidable trend, since every nation copes with itpractically and superficially; challenges it actively or passively (Lee, 2005).

Turkey has been and is still probably known as a country between Europe and Asiawhere two opposing cultural systems meet. Furthermore, Turkey is going through atransition process which covers not only the effects of globalization, but also rapidsocio-cultural changes due to its politics and sociological structure. According toHuntington (1993) widespread Western belief in the universality of the West’s valuesand political systems is naive and the continued insistence on democratization and such

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

MRR34,9

1018

Management Research ReviewVol. 34 No. 9, 2011pp. 1018-1041q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2040-8269DOI 10.1108/01409171111158974

“universal” norms will only further antagonize other civilizations. Huntington suggeststhe West is reluctant to accept this and that the East Asian civilization is culturallyasserting itself and its values relative to the West due to its rapid economic growth.

Emerging trends of industrialization, urbanization, and economic policies have beeninfluencing the Turkish society especially due to a wide variety of social and politicalreforms to enter the European Union. Since cultural values, norms, and beliefs are ofsignificant importance in shaping people’s perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors insocieties, it is worth to understand Turkey’s current cultural framework and indicatethe changes in cultural and individual values of the Turkish society.

These changes could be observed not only in societal dynamics as a general outcome,but also in organizational settings as well (Granell, 2000). Creating change in anorganization would require unique solutions, which relate to the idiosyncraticcharacteristics of the organizational culture and its corresponding work climate in termsof leadership styles, organizational structure, job design, decision-making processes,and communication patterns. Any organization which plans to implement changestrategies for achieving organizational goals and responding to the environmentalstimulus should focus on its own organizational values to influence its employees.

In terms of value importance and value consensus, numerous studies (Schwartz,2006; Rashid et al., 2003; Schwartz and Sagie, 2000) have recently been conducted tounderstand both cross-national differences and cultural diversity within any givensociety. These studies explain why cultural, economic, and political change in theglobal framework is studied by several scholars such as Inglehart and Baker (2000)and Norris and Inglehart (2003) with emphasis on values. Their studies explain thegrowing need for understanding the importance of quality of work life (Zivko, 2006).

The purpose of this paper is to measure managers’ and academicians’ perceptions ofwhat they believe the perception of the workers are with regards to Schwartz’s valuesystem (SVS) theory (Schwartz, 1994). These two distinct groups of people (managersand academicians) are selected since they represent two dominant cultural groups inany society. Since these two groups have influence on members of the society, they are,in extent, cultural agents, or in Schwartz’s (1999) own words, “key cultural carriers”,and consequently, they are generally selected as the samples of similar studies such asSchwartz (1999) and Struch et al. (2002).

In the present study, cultural values are captured from the perspectives of managersand academicians. The underlying assumption is that cultural values are stronglyendorsed by most members of that culture. Instead of just averaging the valuepriorities of any social group, it is more appropriate to let the participants estimate howan average member of a cultural group would respond to the value survey as cultureresides in its members’ intersubjectivity (Wan et al., 2007). Recent studies have adoptedthis approach to measure cultural values by changing the frame of reference from selfto others (Vauclair, 2009).

Although, this study is mainly based on the theoretical framework developed bySchwartz, it also includes four more socio-cultural variables (i.e. high and low context,monochronic versus polychronic societies, self-determination, and temporalorientation). These variables are frequently used in similar culture studies (Gannon,2009), such as Hall’s (1976). Hall made especially important discoveries about theseimportant cultural dimensions and stressed the micro-level aspects of time and space. Hepresented a popular cultural framework including high versus low context cultures and

Cultural values

1019

monochronic versus polychronic societies, and stated that all cultures are situated inrelation to one another through the styles in which they communicate. The temporalfocus of human life has also been singled out as one of the crucial aspects common to allhuman groups. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) noted that each society has a dominantcultural orientation that can be described in terms of temporal orientation dimension.Human motivation varies in the extent to which it is self-determined or controlling.When behaviors are autonomous, they can easily initiate and emanate from one’s self,whereas, behaviors are not chosen by the individual when they are controlled (Deci andRyan, 1985). Since the focus of this paper is on the cultural context of human behavior,the authors thought it was appropriate to include these variables in the study.

Mainly, this study attempts to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. What is the general distribution of cultural and individual values of theTurkish culture?

RQ2. Is there a difference between individuals in terms of their perception about anaverage citizen with regard to cultural and individual values?

RQ3. What is the distribution of the Turkish culture with regard to high and lowcontext, monochronic versus polychronic societies, self-determination andtemporal orientation?

Theoretical backgroundSome scholars (Mingxia et al., 2006; Little et al., 2001; Levitt, 1983) claim thatglobalization and modernization may lead to a common culture worldwide. Accordingto these scholars, similarities between and among the world’s societies have beenincreasing, due to globalization (Mazrui, 1999). However, a good number of studiesdemonstrate that people’s values are quite stable and valid when relying on theirown national culture (Schwartz and Sagie, 2000; Schein, 1992; Deal and Kennedy, 1982;Hofstede, 1980). Culture is a characteristic of an organization or a nation, not ofindividuals. The important aspect is that it is manifested and measured by thenon-verbal or verbal behavior of individuals (Hofstede, 1998).

There are various definitions of culture in literature. What is agreed upon byscholars is that, basic assumptions (beliefs which are taken for granted) and valuesform the nucleus of culture (Schein, 1992). Values lie at the core of culture and influencenorms, practices, and symbols that are developed and adapted by the members of thatculture. They represent the building blocks of attitudes and behaviors which determinethe choices and evaluations that members make (Kluckhohn, 1951, in Hattrup et al.,2007). Values are also fundamental antecedents of behavior in individual analysisand the most practical and measurable component of organizational culture inorganizational analysis. Regardless of the unit of analysis, values are the key or corevariable for understanding cultural similarities or differences within or betweennations or organizations in different societies or in the same society.

Values are defined as enduring goals that serve as guiding principles in people’slives (Rokeach, 1973). Individuals with different values tend to emphasize differentoutcomes and are driven to achieve different goals. The widely accepted definition ofvalues in literature belongs to Rokeach. He defines value as the single belief of a veryspecific kind, as opposed to an organization of several beliefs around a specific objector situation (Rokeach, 1973, p. 18). Similarly, following Rokeach, Schwartz defines

MRR34,9

1020

values as desirable, transsituational goals, varying in importance, that serve asguiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz and Sagie, 2000). Thus, cultural valueswhich are the cognitive schemata and mental programs (Hofstede, 1991), are shared,and impose the rights and wrongs of social systems on members of social entities.

The academic studies that focus on interpreting the value systems of social entities,have generally applied two main approaches: the methods and techniques developedand used by Hofstede and Schwartz. The difference between the studies of Hofstede andSchwartz is their methodological approaches to the subject which aims at understandingcultural attributes. Hofstede (1991) claims that management theories are not universaland the impact of national culture (i.e. cultural values) has been very important onmanagement practices. There is also a well-known GLOBE project which examinesculture as practices and values. In GLOBE research, practices and values were measuredat industry, organizational, and society levels and results were compared with those ofHofstede, Schwartz and Inglehart. For example, their power distance practicescorrelated with Hofstede’s, but their power distance values did not and uncertaintyavoidance values correlated with Schwartz’s embeddedness (House et al., 2004).Schwartz’s theoretical and empirical results supersede the capacity to which Hofstede’sresearch was based. In his study, Schwartz has expanded both the dimensions and thenumber of cultures. Both studies require general understanding as they have importantimplications on the concept of culture.

Hofstede’s frameworkHofstede (1980, 1991) conducted two major empirical studies and developed a matrixfor the classification of similarities and differences that exist in different nationalcultures. The outcomes of his studies were based on a set of country-level factoranalyses which resulted in so-called four socio-cultural dimensions – a fifth one addedlater (Hofstede, 2001) for understanding the nature of a country’s cultural systems.Hofstede’s framework was based on four work-related value-based cultural dimensionswhich are namely uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, powerdistance, and masculinity versus femininity.

Individualism versus collectivism is related with acting in favor of having loosely ortightly knit social framework; preferring “me versus us”. Uncertainty avoidance is ameasure of a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, power distance describesthe extent of inequality in the social system of a country. Members of the country acceptthat wealth, status, and power are all distributed unequally. Masculinity versusfemininity refers to a distribution of roles between the genders, where men are assumedto be more aggressive while women are considered more nurturing (Dodor and Rana,2007). More recently, a fifth dimension was added to these four which emerged from thework of Hofstede and Bond with the aim of eliminating potential western bias in priorstudies. The fifth dimension is short/long time orientation/being past/present(short-time) oriented or future (long-time) oriented. Values associated with long-termorientation are thrift and perseverance, while values related to short-term orientationinclude respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations (Dodor and Rana, 2007).

Recently, Hofstede’s study has received severe criticism by international scholars incultural studies. These criticisms are mainly toward sampling biases (gathering datafrom only one large-scale organization cannot provide information about the entirecountry’s culture), which accuses the study of being too condensed to capture culture

Cultural values

1021

(Ng et al., 2007; Wallace et al., 1999). The study is also criticisized due to the number ofdimensions: four or five dimensions might not be enough to count as artifacts(Hofstede, 1998) of the time in which Hofstede conducted his surveys using classicalapproaches (use of particular statistical methods) for the examination of cross-culturalstudies, such as one-way ANOVA analysis (Fontaine, 2007).

Schwartz’s frameworkThere is extensive empirical research that has been dealing with the typology andmeasurement of values, dynamics of value priorities and the relationship betweenvalues and attitudes, goals, norms, and behavior (Elizur et al., 1991). Most of thesestudies were unable to provide researchers with a consistent theory or structure forintegration. As a result of these shortcomings, Schwartz proposed a theory related withthe content and structure of values. His theory is a remarkable advancement because itorganizes a multitude of separate values into a limited set of value types that areuniversally recognized across different cultures (Roccas, 2005).

Although there are fewer consensuses about what constitutes a value, it is agreed bymost theorists that values are standards or criteria (Kilmann, 1981, p. 943) for choosinggoals or guiding actions and are relatively enduring and stable over time (Meglino et al.,1989, p. 425). Schwartz (1992, p. 2) defined values as desirable states, objects, goals orbehaviors, which are applied as normative standards to judge and choose amongalternative modes of behavior. He suggests that values are transformations into thelanguage of goals of basic human requirements and as individuals interact with eachother, they learn how to express these requirements in value terms. They learn whichgoals or values are compatible and promote another’s attainment, which cannot bepursued if they come into conflict. In this way, individuals construct an implicit networkof associations for each of their values (Struch et al., 2002).

Schwartz rediscovered Rokeach’s typology of personal and social values and then hetranslated them into individual and collective values. He also placed two mixed valuessuch as security and universalism between individual and collective value types.Schwartz’s theory suggests an inherent incompatibility between personal and socialvalues (Gouveia et al., 2002). The important aspect that differentiates these values is thetype of motivational goal they express. Schwartz derived ten motivationally distinct andbroad values which were intended to be comprehensive of different motivationscommon to people across cultures (Table I). He characterized each value by describing

Security Safety and stability of society, relationships and selfConformity Restriction of actions, impulses likely to upset or harm others and to violate social

expectationsTradition Commitment to and acceptance of customs and ideas that tradition or culture imposesBenevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one has frequent

personal interactionUniversalism Understanding, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and natureSelf-direction Independent thought and actionStimulation Excitement and challenge in lifeHedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratificationAchievement Personal success according to social standardsPower Social status, control or dominance over people and resources

Table I.Schwartz’s tenindividual-level values

MRR34,9

1022

its central motivational goal (Struch et al., 2002). Schwartz’s values represent responsesto three universal requirements which all individuals and societies must cope with.These are the needs of individuals, requisites of coordinated social interaction, andrequirements for the support and survival of groups (Ros et al., 1999).

As a result of this study, Schwartz found that at individual level, conflicts orincompatibilities among all ten values form an integrated structure. At this point,Schwartz suggested two basic dimensions along which his ten individual values wereidentified these dimensions in accordance with the conflicts between them. The firstdimension is self-enhancement versus self-transcendence. This dimension is related tothe conflicts between power and achievement values, and universalism andbenevolence values. Power and achievement values emphasize self-interest even atthe expense of others, whereas universalism and benevolence values involve showingconcern for others’ interests and welfare. The second dimension is openness to changeversus conservatism. Here, self-direction and stimulation values oppose to security,conformity, and tradition values. The former values emphasize independent thoughtand action and novelty whereas the latter values emphasizing respect, harmony andresistance to change. Hedonism values emphasize both openness and self-enhancement(Schwartz et al., 2001).

At cultural level, Schwartz investigated the intercorrelations between the valuedimensions and found seven cultural-level value types (Table II) by considering threecritical issues (Ng et al., 2007). The first issue is embeddedness versus autonomy. Inautonomous cultures, people are seen as entities that express their own feelings,thoughts, and ideas and find meaning in their uniqueness. In embedded cultures, themeaning of life is dependent on social relationships and identification with the group.Actions that might disrupt group solidity or traditional order are restrained. Thesecond issue is egalitarianism versus hierarchy. Cultural egalitarianism tries topersuade people to recognize each other as equals who share basic interests. People feelan interest in the welfare of others. On the other hand, cultural hierarchy defines theunequal distribution of power and resources. Social power, authority, and humilityvalues are very important in these cultures. The third societal issue is mastery versusharmony. Harmony emphasizes fitting into the world as it is and understanding itrather than to changing it, whereas mastery emphasizes changing the natural andsocial environment in order to achieve personal and group goals (Schwartz, 2006).

The attempts to test the generalizability of cultural-level values were successful.Schwartz gathered over 44,000 data from 49 countries and proved a consistentstructure for the seven value framework (Fontaine and Richardson, 2005). Accordingly,Schwartz concluded that these values covered the relations among national cultures.

Cultural level Individual level

Embeddedness Corresponds to Conformity, security, tradition, and religionHierarchy Power and traditionMastery Achievement and stimulationAffective autonomy Hedonism and stimulationIntellectual autonomy Self-directionEgalitarianism UniversalismHarmony Universalism

Table II.Schwartz’s seven

cultural-level values

Cultural values

1023

The present study is mainly based on the theoretical framework developed bySchwartz, but in terms of the cultural context of human behavior, researchers includedfour more socio-cultural (cultural patterning) variables: high versus low context,monochronic versus polychronic societies, self-determination, and temporal orientation(Gannon, 1994). These variables are believed to be included in this study due to theirfrequent use in similar studies and are briefly explained as follows.

Edward Hall was one of the scholars, an anthropologist, to examine thecommunication patterns in various cultures, and he classified cultures along high andlow context dimensions (Sparrow and Wu, 1998; Gannon, 1994). High context societyrefers to whether communication is expressed by implicit or explicit messages. In lowcontext societies (such as Americans, Germans, and Northern Europeans), peopleattach more meaning to the message itself such as what is being said and what is beingmeant. In contrast, in high context societies (such as Asians, Arabs, and SouthernEuropeans) meaning in communication is internalized, and consequently it is moredifficult to understand and interpret the messages. The reason for this is that in highcontext cultures, the important thing is the role of relationships between peoplecommunicating with each other.

In relation to perceptions of time, there are two categories which are basic timeorientation, and monochronic versus polychronic culture. High context people are moreflexible in the organization and management of work. These people used to doing ortend to do more than one activity at one time, and this is defined as polychronic. On theother hand, monochronic people tend to do one activity at a time, and do not allowinterruptions. Basic time orientation is simply related to people’s interest on past,present, or future. Self-determination emphasizes that human actions affect the futureand since the future is predetermined, human action is just part of the overall cause.

MethodSampleThe sample consisted of respondents who are under the age of 46 and above theage of 46. The reason for choosing the age limit of 46 is to compare the perceptions ofrespondents regarding cultural orientations and change between two periods of time inTurkey’s near history. Age 46 is considered as a cut-off point to reflect these changes.Among a total of 810 respondents, 599 were businessmen and 211 were academicians.Quite similarly, 519 participants were under the age of 46 while the numbers ofparticipants above the age of 46 were 219. The participants were selected from differentregions of Turkey including North, South, Southeast, and Central Anatolia. Conveniencesampling was used for businessmen and random sampling was used for academicians.

ProcedureFor businessmen, key persons were used who could easily have access to theparticipants. These key persons were senior managers of both large and medium sizecompanies, and trade unions as well as top managers of employer associations. Inreaching academicians, all universities in Turkey were listed and randomly 38 werechosen from seven regions of Turkey. Heads of business administration departmentsof each university were contacted by researchers by telephone and upon theiracceptance for participation; the questionnaires were sent by post and received back

MRR34,9

1024

by the same way. Among 94 state and 38 foundation universities in Turkey, acceptancefor participation was received from 23 universities.

Research designOne of the authors revised Schwartz’s basic model by making some changes to make itmore appropriate for the purpose of the present study. In doing so, the author changedthe methodological structure of Schwartz’s model. This is done by using seven maincultural dimensions, and ten main individual dimensions instead of using 56 conceptualelements (values) as used by Schwartz as single items of the original measurementinstrument.

The use of conceptual dimensions is not an entirely new methodological approach.Although, such a modification can be considered as a threat to the validity of theoriginal measurement instrument, this approach has been preferred for differentreasons since it creates a shortened version of the instruments. The measurement ofvalues is made at two levels, namely individual and cultural. This methodologicalapproach is likely to create the problem of “ecological fallacy” as explained by Hofstede(1980). Consequently, there is an ongoing debate in connection with analysistechniques of cultural and individual values in relevant literature. Since the presentstudy makes a behavioral approach to the study subject, the use of seven cultural andten individual “motivationally distinct, broad values from the universal requirementsof human condition” (Struch et al., 2002) as conceptual dimensions are likely to leadbroad, and socially shared cultural domains in a given society. In fact, some of theresearchers used the same methodological approach in their study concerning nationalcultures and cultural values (Steenkamp, 2001).

Additionally, authors consolidated previous research findings, and clarified fourmore socio-cultural variables (dimensions) as explained in the literature review part ofthe study. What really distinguishes the present study from previous ones is that it ismeasuring the perception of the respondents (businessmen and academicians) as theybelieve the workers perceive certain cultural values. In other words, the authorsdid not measure the managers’ and academicians’ perspective, but rather measuredthe perception of the average worker, or average Turkish citizen as interpreted bythe managers or academicians. Although the study is explorative in nature, a descriptivetype of research design was used to learn the characteristics and distribution of researchvariables (cultural dimensions) in Turkish society.

Measurement instrumentSchwartz et al. developed a measurement device (SVS) that is composed of 56 culturalvalues. These values represent 17 conceptual dimensions. Seven out of 17 values arelabeled as cultural and the remaining ten dimensions are identified as individual-levelvalues.

The questionnaire used in this study was designed especially for two different agegroups. One of them was used for the participants who were over the age of 46 andthe other group under the age of 46. Those two questionnaires included exactly thesame items, with different instructions for the two different age groups. This is done inorder to enable the respondents who were over 46 years of age, to compare theimportance of today’s values with what they were about 40-50 years ago.

Cultural values

1025

The measurement instrument used in this study has three main sections. The firstsection covers five socio-demographic items. The second one consists of Schwartz’sseven cultural value dimensions (items) together with four more cultural constructs(low versus high context societies, monochronic versus polychronic societies,self-determination, and temporal orientation). These 11 items are arranged as aseven-point Likert-type questionnaire (Harzing et al., 2009), ranging from “not tomention” to “highly important”. The third section covers Schwartz’s ten individualvalue dimensions (items). These ten items are designed as a five-point Likert-typequestionnaire ranging from “not important” to “very important”. Thus, themeasurement instrument covers a total of 26 items.

ResultsDescriptive statisticsThe sample consists of 810 individuals. Of the sample, 568 are male and 242 are female.The age of participants ranges from 19 to 79 with a mean of 39. Majority of the sample(72 percent) is married. Of the individuals, 47 percent have a university degree and18 percent have a postgraduate degree. Of the sample, 41 percent is employed in thepublic sector and 53 percent lives in metropolitans in Turkey. Metropolitan is a citywith more than 750,000 inhabitants. At present, 16 of the provincial centers in Turkeyare metropolitan centers such as Adana, Ankara, Antalya, Bursa, Diyarbakır,Erzurum, Eskisehir, Gaziantep, Mersin, Istanbul, Izmir, Kayseri, Kocaeli, Konya,Sakarya, and Samsun. Table III highlights the relevant descriptive statistics.

Variable n Percentage Mean SD Range

GenderMale 568 70Female 242 30Age 800 39.1 10.68 19-79Marital statusMarried 583 72Single 206 25Other 3Education levelPrimary 17 2High school 110 14University 382 47Post graduate 301 18Job positionPublic sector 336 41Private sector 309 38Self-employed 136 17Retired 29 4ResidenceRural area 29 4Town 59 7City 284 36Metropolitan 429 53

Table III.Descriptive statistics ofthe sample

MRR34,9

1026

Reliability analysisThe analysis had a very satisfactory Cronbach’ a value (0.881) for 17 items Schwartzquestionnaire.

Exploratory factor analysisExploratory factor analyses using SPSS 15.0 was employed to examine the plausibilityof the postulated model. First, two principal component analyses were performed forseven cultural value and ten individual value model (Tables IV and V). The culturalvalue model resulted in a unidimensional one (KMO ¼ 0.837, Bartlett test ¼ 0.000,x2 ¼ 2,931.558, df ¼ 0.36). The reliability of this single factor is a ¼ 0.867. Percentagesof each value dimension explaining the cumulative variance are as follows.

The same principal component analysis was conducted for Schwartz’s ten individualvalue dimensions. The individual value model yielded three components by leaving thefirst dimension (INDV21) as the unique item. This analysis was repeated (KMO ¼ 0.872,Bartlett test ¼ 0.000, x2 ¼ 2,931.558, df ¼ 0.36), two factors were obtainedthat accounted for 61.5 percent of cumulative variance. The first factor explained35.556 percent and the second factor explained 25.944 percent of the total variance. Theoverall reliability of nine individual value dimensions isa ¼ 0.852. Reliability of the firstfactor is a ¼ 0.810 and Cronbach’ a is a ¼ 0.766 for the second factor.

Afterwards another principal component analysis was performed by including twoconstructs (cultural and individual values) together, which yielded four components.The fourth component was eliminated, which included, not surprisingly, power andconservatism (embeddedness) together. The analysis resulted with a KMO valueof 0.891, Bartlett test value of 0.000 by explaining 63.8 percent of cumulative variance.

Factor 1 Variance (%)

Conservatism 56.418Hierarchy 13.654Mastery 9.123Affective autonomy 7.536Intellectual autonomy 5.873Egalitarianism 4.103Harmony 3.287

Table IV.Results of the factoranalysis of cultural

value dimensions

Factor loadingsFactor 1 Factor 2

Stimulating 0.805Self-direction 0.801Hedonism 0.763Universalism 0.690Achievement 0.578Tradition 0.832Conformity 0.802Security 0.606Benevolence 0.577

Table V.Results of the factor

analysis individualvalue dimensions

Cultural values

1027

The result was satisfactory, and while the first factor included six dimensions of sevencultural values, individual values were included in two different factors.

Means of cultural and individual values for participants over 46 years ofage and under 46 years of ageSchwartz used 57 values for measuring cultural- and individual-level values. First, heaveraged the importance of each value which constitutes certain cultural dimensionssuch as intellectual autonomy (its corresponding values are curious, broadminded, andcreativity). In this study, the authors used cultural dimensions, but not individual items(i.e. values).

Thus, seven cultural-level values were directly averaged. The means for eachcultural-level value were first computed for the participants who are over the age of 46 andthen for those who are under the age of 46. The mean values are shown in Tables VIand VII, indicating their level of importance. Since a seven-point Likert-type scale was used(1 – not to mention, 7 – highly important), each mean value should be evaluated (i.e. themean value of conservatism should be interpreted as “important”) accordingly.

The ranking of the seven cultural value dimensions for participants over 46 yearsaccording to the level of importance are, not surprisingly, as follows: conservatism(embeddedness), intellectual autonomy, hierarchy, mastery, affective autonomy,harmony, and egalitarianism. The ranking changes for participants under 46 years asconservatism, hierarchy, mastery, intellectual autonomy, egalitarianism, affectiveautonomy, and harmony. The dimension of conservatism and autonomy include threeitems; mastery and hierarchy cover two, and egalitarianism and harmony include oneitem.

A set of t-tests was used to understand whether the differences between the two agegroups were statistically meaningful. The point that deserves attention is thedifference in the perception of conservatism. The participants under 46 years placemore importance on conservatism than the second group of participants (t ¼ 2.157,p ¼ 0.032). The perceptions of two cultural values which showed no difference at allwere hierarchy and egalitarianism. In turn, the cultural values of intellectualand affective autonomy, mastery, and harmony were rated by participants who are

ConservatismIntellectualautonomy

Affectiveautonomy Hierarchy Mastery Egalitarianism Harmony

n 219 219 219 219 219 219 219Mean 5.5890 5.2100 5.0000 5.1963 5.0913 4.7443 4.7717Median 6.0000 6.0000 5.0000 6.0000 6.0000 5.0000 5.0000SD 1.37643 1.62878 1.69727 1.61495 1.50865 2.00650 1.90675

Table VI.Mean values of sevencultural-level values forparticipants over 46

ConservatismIntellectualautonomy

Affectiveautonomy Hierarchy Mastery Egalitarianism Harmony

n 591 591 591 591 591 591 591Mean 5.8139 4.7140 4.4416 4.9898 4.7817 4.4958 4.3316Median 6.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000SD 1.14502 1.86977 1.83457 1.69343 1.72658 2.05918 2.05393

Table VII.Mean values of sevencultural-level values forparticipants under 46

MRR34,9

1028

over 46 years as more important in comparison to the members of the first group(t ¼ 3.694, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 4.067, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 2.492, p ¼ 0.013; t ¼ 2.856, p ¼ 0.005).

The results of Schwartz’s individual-level items are shown in Tables VIII and IX,indicating that having “power” (dominance over people and resources) is the dominantvalue.

Since the individual-level dimensions were considered single items and measuredby a five-point Likert-type scale, each mean value represented the actual degree ofimportance (i.e. 1 – no importance, 3 – neither/nor, 4 – extreme importance).The striking point is that the dimensions of “stimulation” and “self-direction” wererated as “less important” and “important”.

As mentioned earlier in the theoretical section, the researchers added five items inorder to understand the managers’ and academicians’ perceptions of what they believethe workers’ and average Turkish citizens’ perceptions are, regardingself-determination, low-high context, monochronic and polychronic, and temporalorientation. Since self-determination, low-high context, and monochronic andpolychronic were rated on a four-point scale, and temporal orientation was rated on athree-point scale and mean scores were computed accordingly. The results regardingself-determination, low-high context, and monochronic and polychronic are shown inTables X and XI.

As theoretically assumed, the median values clearly indicated the fact that theTurkish society reflects the values of Asian countries rather than Western ones. Thus,according to the respondents’ opinions, Turkish society could be classified, in extent,as a high context and polychronic society. The median value of self-determinationdeserved attention because of the fact that respondents saw the members of Turkishsociety as believers in fate which also explained the high mean value for hierarchy andconservatism as well as high factor loadings, particularly on these two variables.

Temporal orientation was measured on a three-point scale. Results tabulated inTable XII shows that members of Turkish society emphasize “today” mainly, “future”and in lesser degree.

t-Test for gender differencesSeveral t-tests were conducted both for the participants over the age of 46 and for thoseunder the age of 46 in order to see whether there is a significant difference between menand women in terms of those 17 values. Among participants over 46 years, menperceived cultural values such as intellectual autonomy, hierarchy, egalitarianism, andharmony as more important than women (t ¼ 2.32, p ¼ 0.021; t ¼ 2.28, p ¼ 0.023;t ¼ 3.07, p ¼ 0.002; t ¼ 2.94, p ¼ 0.004). Among participants under 46 years, menagain perceived intellectual autonomy, affective autonomy, hierarchy, mastery,egalitarianism, and harmony more important than women (t ¼ 3.99, p ¼ 0.000;t ¼ 3.84, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 3.55, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 4.17, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 4.63, p ¼ 0.000;t ¼ 2.32, p ¼ 0.021).

In terms of individual values, regardless of the age group, female participants ratedpower as more important than men (t ¼ 2.45, p ¼ 0.017; t ¼ 2.17, p ¼ 0.030).Additionally, male participants who were under 46 years rated hedonism, stimulation,self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, and security as having moreimportance than women (t ¼ 3.63, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 3.60, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 4.24, p ¼ 0.000;t ¼ 4.29, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 4.31, p ¼ 0.000; t ¼ 4.98, p ¼ 0.003; t ¼ 4.51, p ¼ 0.000).

Cultural values

1029

Pow

erA

chie

vem

ent

Hed

onis

mS

tim

ula

tion

Sel

f-d

irec

tion

Un

iver

sali

smB

enev

olen

ceT

rad

itio

nC

onfo

rmit

yS

ecu

rity

n21

921

921

921

921

921

921

921

921

921

9M

ean

3.73

973.

5525

3.60

733.

4201

3.33

792.

9589

2.95

433.

3151

3.17

353.

0183

Med

ian

4.00

003.

0000

3.00

003.

0000

3.00

003.

0000

3.00

003.

0000

3.00

003.

0000

SD

1.18

895

1.34

121

1.20

101

1.24

312

1.32

143

1.43

888

1.39

790

1.29

394

1.26

460

1.31

948

Table VIII.Mean values of tenindividual-level valuesfor participants over 46

MRR34,9

1030

Pow

erA

chie

vem

ent

Hed

onis

mS

tim

ula

tion

Sel

f-d

irec

tion

Un

iver

sali

smB

enev

olen

ceT

rad

itio

nC

onfo

rmit

yS

ecu

rity

n59

159

159

159

159

159

159

159

159

159

1M

ean

3.66

673.

4146

3.31

132.

7970

2.58

382.

4501

3.01

523.

6210

3.51

612.

9086

Med

ian

3.00

003.

0000

3.00

002.

0000

2.00

002.

0000

2.00

003.

0000

3.00

002.

0000

SD

0.86

901

1.31

706

1.30

994

1.30

965

1.37

266

1.44

183

1.35

546

1.16

281

1.27

297

1.33

828

Table IX.Mean values of ten

individual-level valuesfor participants under 46

Cultural values

1031

With respect to self-determination, monochronic-polychronic, and high-low contextvalues, men who are under 46 years perceive self-determination as more important thanwomen. According to the findings, there is no significant difference between men andwomen who are over 46 years with respect to other cultural values (t ¼ 1.99, p ¼ 0.047).

Additional t-tests were also run to understand the differences in the perception ofcultural and individual values according to educational background and regionaldifferences, but no outstanding result was observed at all. This finding might be anindicator of the fact that cultural values are, indeed, desirable, and transsituationalgoals; moreover, their interpretation did not come up with striking differences inTurkey, at least, this is the case for the present study despite the fact that research datawere collected from different geographical regions.

Discussion and conclusionAs stated by Schwartz (1999, p. 75), “cultural values represent the implicitly or explicitlyshared abstract ideas about what is good, right, and desirable in a society”. In terms ofSchwartz’s model, the seven value types are assumed to form three bipolar dimensions,which are autonomy versus conservatism, hierarchy versus egalitarianism, and masteryversus harmony.

The first one is the relation between the individual and the group which is labeled as“individualism versus collectivism” by Hofstede, and it is known as a bipolar dimensionof “conservatism versus autonomy”. While conservatism stands for respect fortradition, social order, family security, and wisdom, the autonomy dimension is dividedinto two sub-dimensions as intellectual and affective autonomy. Intellectual autonomy

Self-determination H/context P/M chronic

n 219 219 219Mean 4.2100 5.3242 4.7900Median 5.0000 6.0000 5.0000SD 1.81777 1.41742 1.66499

Table X.Mean values of additionalcultural characteristicsfor participants over 46

Self-determination H/context P/M chronic

n 591 591 591Mean 4.2064 5.5245 4.9036Median 5.0000 6.0000 5.0000SD 1.84244 1.31574 1.51014

Table XI.Mean values of additionalcultural characteristicsfor participants under 46

Temporal orientationOver 46 Under 46

n 219 591Mean 2.4703 2.4281Median 3.0000 3.0000SD 0.6792 0.7532

Table XII.Mean value oftemporal orientation

MRR34,9

1032

represents curiosity, broadmindedness, and creativity, in turn; affective autonomyincludes pleasure, exciting life, and varied life.

The second-bipolar dimension places “hierarchy” to one end, and “egalitarianism”to the other end. The sub-dimension of hierarchy (power distance as described byHofstede) covers social power, authority, humility, and wealth. In contrast,egalitarianism includes equality, social justice, freedom, responsibility, and honestydefined as a cultural emphasis on transcendence of selfish interests by Schwartz.

The last and third dimension represents two cultural sub-dimensions which aredefined as “mastery” and “harmony”. The first one is about active self-assertion forgetting ahead of others in any given society, while harmony describes the degree of fitbetween the individual, natural (environment), and social world.

Since cultural-level values are more appropriate for understanding the effects ofsocietal values on work, and way of living (Schwartz, 1999), Turkey could be easilydefined as a conservative country which indicates being a collectivist rather than anindividualistic society, and implies the desire of large groups of population as seekingthe maintenance of status quo, and order. However, in Schwartz’s (2006, p. 157) ownwords, “only nine cultures are located outside of their expected region. Four of thesecultures (Turkey, Greek, Cyprus, Israeli Arabs, Israel, and Jews) are from the culturallydiverse Middle East”. The opposite pole of this dimension is autonomy, and its rankingwas the mere reflection of its relatively lesser degree of importance. Yet, what alsodeserves attention is Schwartz’s (2006, p. 157) conclusion:

[. . .] the Turkish culture is higher on egalitarianism and autonomy, and lower on hierarchyand embeddedness than its Middle Eastern Muslim neighbors are. This probably reflects itssecular democracy, long history of East European influence, and recent struggles to join theWest.

Two polar of the second dimension, hierarchy, and egalitarianism, are about people’streatment in a given society. This mainly depends on either fulfilling their tasksaccording to pre-determined rules, or they do the same thing by valuing others more byproviding fairness and justice in the society. Research findings suggested, notsurprisingly, that hierarchy which was ranked as the second most important polardimension, indicated a cultural emphasis on the legitimacy of unequal distribution ofpower, roles, and resources. Egalitarianism was the least important for respondents over46 years of age, and the fifth one for those under the age of 46. Since embeddedness andhierarchy imply collectivist behavior rather than personal independence(i.e. egalitarianism) from a theoretical perspective, the high levels of conservatism andhierarchy, as in this study, indicates the importance of belonging to a group instead ofpersonal autonomy.

These findings are in line with both Schwartz’s conclusions that “embeddedness(conservatism) and hierarchy are both high in the Southeast Asian cultures”, as well aswith that of Pasa (2000) stating “the Turkish culture is also characterized by relativelymore conservative and traditionalist rural and lower socio-economic groups of society”.The mean age for the first group of respondents was 34 and 53 years for the secondgroup. Although the sample size of the first group was much bigger (n ¼ 591) than thesecond one (n ¼ 219), it was worth examining the mean values of cultural values for bothgroups due to the differences in the hierarchy of cultural values. What is initiallyexpected was the level of importance to be higher for the cultural values of conservatism,and hierarchy for the average Turkish citizen by respondents over the age of 46.

Cultural values

1033

In contrast, respondents under 46 years perceive that the average citizen valuesconservatism and hierarchy more in today’s Turkey. This may be a result of the growingemphasis of current government on religious values and beliefs. As a matter of fact thecorresponding t-tests indicated that these findings were statistically significant andmeaningful in social context.

Concerning the value hierarchy, the findings of this study supported the expectationsregarding respondents over the age of 46, but indicated almost the opposite of initialexpectations regarding respondents under 46. It was found that conservatism andhierarchy mean values are also important for respondents under 46 years. The outcomesof an independent t-test for the importance level of seven cultural values between bothgroups of respondents indicated that there was a statistically significant difference forconservatism unexpectedly in favor of respondents under the age of 46, but there was nodifference for the cultural values of hierarchy and egalitarianism.

This finding is of importance due to the fact that the Justice and Development Party(AKP) has been the dominant party in Turkey for seven years with majority of seats inparliament. Because of its conservative stance, the AKP has been the leading force increating a polarization of “secular and anti-secular” divisions in society. The power andinfluence of AKP members have increased, who have gained the upper hand in voicingtheir anti-secular beliefs. The socio-cultural change that has been brought about, andthe influence it has had on the younger generation, can explain the results obtained bythis research. The authors consider these findings extremely important.

According to the authors, the third dimension which consists of mastery andharmony is related to the dynamic nature of societies. The present study indicates thatan average individual in Turkey perceives mastery as “just important” for achievingpersonal success in life. However, harmony does not rate as highly as mastery. Thiswould indicate that the consideration for harmony does not carry equal value or weightin terms of its place in social dynamics as Western countries (Schwartz, 1999, 2006).In this context, it appears that, individuals prefer to actively accept themselves inmastering, directing, and changing the natural and social environment, in order to attaintheir personal goals, rather than accepting and fitting into their social environment.Furthermore, the cultural values of intellectual and affective autonomy, mastery andharmony were rated by participants over 46 years as more important. As confirmed byrelevant t-tests, the corresponding results were statistically significant, which can beconsidered as an important indicator of social change in Turkish society through thelast 40 years.

Individual values represent three universal requirements of human existence suchas biological needs, social interaction, and demands of group survival and functioning(Schwartz and Bardi, 2001). What should be underlined is the association between theimportance level of values, and modernization, democratization, and industrialization.Furthermore, hedonism values are likely to increase as socio-economic developmentincreases while power and security values are likely associated with low-levelsocio-economic status (Schwartz and Sagie, 2000). Once modernization has beenpronounced, one should make a reference to the term globalization as well. Sinceglobalization implies a need and pressure for immediate change, it is more than what iscalled Westernization. As Alvey (2005, p. 251) states “a major cause of modernization iseconomic change and globalization”. Yet, there are numerous articles written arguing

MRR34,9

1034

misinterpretations about the contextual nature and impact of the term, or the conceptof globalization (Inglehart, 1997; Granell, 2000; Asgary and Walle, 2002).

This study indicates that the individual value of power is extremely important forboth groups of respondents, and tradition appears to be the second important value forrespondents under the age of 46. Individual values of universalism, self-direction, andbenevolence are rated as “just important”. These findings are consistent with thefindings regarding seven cultural values, but not with those of Schwartz and Bardi(2001), obtained from their representative sampling. This sample includes 13 nationssuch as Chile, Germany, France, and Italy. The mean ranking of ten individual valuesof Schwartz’s study and this study are shown in Table XIII.

The obvious differences in mean rankings of individual values must not beinterpreted as if these values are not universal. Motivational goals of individuals aresubject to change, and differ in accordance with historical, social, economic and politicalcharacteristics of societies. Considering the findings of the present study regardingcultural values, conservatism, and hierarchy are the most important values and it wouldbe meaningful to see power and tradition as the most important individual values.An interesting outcome is the order of the individual values of achievement andbenevolence. If one considers Turkish culture as collectivist, members of Turkishsociety accept inequalities in distribution of power and are intolerant to ambiguity.Consequently, value power and tradition are higher than the Western culture. It seemsthat Turkish people are not in favor of the formation of relations with the social andnatural environment, and becoming selfish, except of the social group to which they feelbelongingness. Significant increase in the magnitude of power might also be thought asan indicator of modernization process which causes the average Turkish citizen tobecome more materialist in spite of emphasizing traditional values and beliefs.Aukrust et al. (2003, p. 482) stated that “Turks are more collectivist than Americans andNorwegians (but not less individualistic)”.

In terms of cultural patterning, according to the perceptions of all respondents(n ¼ 810), the Turkish society can be classified as high context culture, polychronic innature, and focal point of temporal orientation is “today”. Most members of theTurkish society are Muslim, and consequently they believe in faith. Although otherdivine religions also emphasize faithfulness, generally speaking, faith in God has beenand is the most important issue among Turkish people. This characteristic can be seenin the ways Turkish people communicate, interact, and do business.

Furthermore, concerning self-determinism, almost half of the average Turkishworker/citizen believed that the outcomes of one’s behaviors, actions (i.e. future ofpeople) could be controlled by people themselves, while the remaining half simplybelieved the opposite. Although these results which are consistent with similar studies(Aycan et al., 2000), must be interpreted carefully due to the fact that each culturalpatterning was measured by just one item.

What is quite understandable is the impact of globalization on cultural values, andconsequently on individual values. In an academic sense, it would not be right thatranking of value importance across cultures makes it possible to classify nations asless/high developed or first/third world (Pick and Dayaram, 2006). Bearing thesearguments in mind, it must be logical to emphasize the association, the powerful linkbetween transformation of the needs of human beings from somewhat concrete

Cultural values

1035

Ind

ivid

ual

val

ues

Ben

evol

ence

Sel

f-d

irec

tion

Un

iver

sali

smS

ecu

rity

Con

form

ity

Ach

iev

emen

tH

edon

ism

Sti

mu

lati

onT

rad

itio

nP

ower

Rep

rese

nta

tiv

esa

mp

le1

23

45

67

89

10T

his

stu

dy

69

108

43

57

21

Table XIII.Mean rank of individualvalues of Schwartz’srepresentative sampleversus present study

MRR34,9

1036

to abstract cultural values as a result of cultural, economic, and political changes allover the world. The authors believed that it is worth to quote:

The process of modernization is not linear; when society is in transition from industrialsociety into knowledge society, it moves in a new direction, from survival values towardemphasis on personal well-being (Zivko, 2006, p. 1025).

In terms of managerial implications, the findings of this study provided additionalevidence that the importance level of both cultural and individual values was differentthan that of developed (Western) countries. Thus, once the priorities of persons differsharply than those who live and work in Western countries, their perceptions, anddecision-making methods are likely to be different as well. The possible reflections ofsuch sharp differences are worth studying, regarding the establishment ofinternational transactions between countries like Turkey or Romania and thedeveloped ones, with special reference to the implementation of certain businessstrategies such as risk taking, or enhancement of innovation in organizations.

As participants of this study, managers and academicians accept the averageTurkish citizen as supporting the values related to power and tradition, but notcreativity, achievement, independency, and a varied life. For the business world, suchan assumption would lead managers to establish a supportive organizational climate toexhibit a benevolent or paternalistic type of leadership, and give their workers limitedempowerment and freedom with regards to management of business strategies. In thefield of education, teachers and instructors may not be successful, or may not want tocreate an interactive medium for teaching their subjects to students. The instructorsmay prefer to dictate certain values, and transfer their knowledge to the studentswithout motivating them to question their own subjects from different perspectives.

In brief, neither the average Turkish worker nor the average Turkish student who willbe able to take risks both for his/her own life or for the achievement of organizationalgoals, will prefer to accept inequalities as long as he/she makes a living. This is why theoutcomes of the present study and the similar ones cited here above, indicated that theaverage Turkish citizen seeks power, tries to support traditional values, but wishesenjoying his or her life without too much concentrating on his or her own personal success.

Future research: since the methodological structure of Schwartz’s model waschanged by one of the authors, and 17 dimensions were used instead of 56 values, itwould be rather beneficial to test the new model for understanding the magnitude ofsensitivity to measure such high-level constructions. Although the reliability andfactor analyses indicated an acceptable level of statistical significance, it would bemuch more reliable to apply structural equation modeling to be sure about the effect ofmethodological modifications in assessing the cultural- and individual-level values.Furthermore, the change of reference is, actually, another important issue to learn thethoughts and perceptions of participants by eliminating self-efficacy.

References

Alvey, J.E. (2005), “Economics and religion: globalization as the cause of secularization as viewedby Adam Smith”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 249-67.

Asgary, N. and Walle, A.H. (2002), “The cultural impact of globalisation: economic activity andsocial change”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 58-75.

Cultural values

1037

Aukrust, V.G., Edwards, C.P., Kumru, A., Knoche, L. and Kim, M. (2003), “Young children’s closerelationships outside the family: parental ethnotheories in four communities in Norway,United States, Turkey, and Korea”, International Journal of Behavioral Development,Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 481-94.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. and Kurshid, A. (2000),“Impact of culture on human resource management practices: a 10-country comparison”,Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 192-221.

Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behvaior,Plenum, New York, NY.

Dodor, J.B.K. and Rana, D.S. (2007), “Culture and economic development: an investigation usingHofstede cultural dimensions”, International Journal of Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 2,pp. 75-84.

Elizur, D., Borg, I., Hunt, R. and Beck, I.M. (1991), “The structure of work values: a cross-culturalcomparison”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 21-38.

Fontaine, R. (2007), “Cross-cultural management: six perspectives”, Cross Cultural Management:An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 125-35.

Fontaine, R. and Richardson, S. (2005), “Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese, Malays and Indianscompared”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 63-77.

Gannon, M.J. (1994), Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 17 Countries,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gannon, M.J. (2009), Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 29 Nations,Clusters of Nations, and Diversity, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gouveia, V.V., Albuquerque, F.J.B., Clemente, M. and Espinosa, P. (2002), “Human values andsocial identities: a study in two collectivist cultures”, International Journal of Psychology,Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 333-42.

Granell, E. (2000), “Culture and globalization: a Latin American challenge”, Industrial &Commercial Training, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 89-93.

Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Random House, New York, NY.

Harzing, A.W., Baldueza, J., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Barzantny, C., Canabal, A.,Davila, A., Espejo, A., Ferreira, R., Giroud, A., Koester, K., O’Sullivan, S.L.,Liang, Y.K., Mockaitis, A., Morley, M.J., Myloni, B., Odusanya, J.O., Prochno, P.,Choudhury, S.R., Saka, A., Siengthai, S., Viswat, L., Soydas, A.U.R. and Zander, L. (2009),“Ranking versus rating: what is the best way to reduce response and language bias incross-national research?”, International Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 417-32.

Hattrup, K., Muller, K. and ve Aguirre, P. (2007), “Operationalizing value importance incross-cultural research: company direct and indirect measures?”, Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 499-513.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.

Hofstede, G. (1998), “Think locally, act globally: cultural constraints in personnel management”,Management International Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 7-26.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, andOrganizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

MRR34,9

1038

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadershipand Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Vol. 62, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Huntington, S. (1993), “The clash of civilizations?”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 22-49.

Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and PoliticalChange in 43 Societies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. (2000), “Modernization, cultural change and the persistence oftraditional values”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, pp. 19-51.

Kilmann, R.H. (1981), “Toward a unique/useful concept of values for interpersonal behavior:a critical review of the literature on value”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 48, pp. 939-59.

Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Greenwood,Westport, CO.

Lee, K. (2005), Global Marketing Management: Changes, Challenges, and New Strategies,Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Levitt, T. (1983), “The globalization of markets”, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 2-11.

Little, S., Holmes, L. and Grieco, M. (2001), “Calling up culture”, Information Technology &People, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 353-67.

Mazrui, A.A. (1999), “Globalization and cross-cultural values: the politics of identity andjudgment?”, Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 97-110.

Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C. and Adkins, C.L. (1989), “Work values approach to corporate culture:a field test of the values congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 424-32.

Mingxia, Z., Quan, R. and Xuan, K. (2006), “The impact of Sino-Western cultural differences on ITproducts consumption”, Journal of TechnologyManagement in China, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 159-73.

Ng, S.I., Lee, J.A. and Soutar, G.N. (2007), “Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworkscongruent?”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 164-80.

Norris, P. and Inglehart, R. (2003), “Islamic culture and democracy: testing the ‘clash ofcivilization’ thesis”, in Inglehart, R. (Ed.), Human Values and Social Change: Findings fromthe Values Surveys, Brill, Leiden.

Pasa, S.F. (2000), “Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist culture?”,Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 414-26.

Pick, D. and Dayaram, K. (2006), “Globalisation, reflexive modernisation, and development:the case of India”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 171-83.

Rashid, M.Z.A., Sambasivan, M. and Rahman, A.A. (2003), “The influence of organizationalculture on attitudes toward organizational change”, The Leadership & OrganizationalDevelopment Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 161-79.

Roccas, S. (2005), “Religion and value systems”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 747-59.

Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Ros, M., Schwartz, S.H. and Surkiss, S. (1999), “Basic individual values, work values and themeaning of work”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 49-71.

Schein, E.H. (1992),Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advancesand empirical tests in 20 countries?”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25,pp. 1-65.

Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of humanvalues?”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50, pp. 19-45.

Cultural values

1039

Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A theory of cultural values and some implications for work”, AppliedPsychology: An International Review, Vol. 48, pp. 23-47.

Schwartz, S.H. (2006), “A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications”,Comparative Sociology, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 137-92.

Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001), “Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similaritiesperspective”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 268-90.

Schwartz, S.H. and Sagie, G. (2000), “Value consensus and importance: a cross-national study”,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 465-97.

Schwartz, S.H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M. and Owens, V. (2001),“Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with adifferent method of measurement”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 5,pp. 519-42.

Sparrow, P. and Wu, P. (1998), “Does national culture really matter? Predicting HRM preferencesof Taiwanese employees”, Employee Relations, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 26-56.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (2001), “The role of national culture in international marketingresearch”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 30-44.

Struch, N., Schwartz, S.H. and Van der Kloot, W.A. (2002), “Meanings of basic values for womenand men: a cross-cultural analysis”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28,pp. 16-28.

Vauclair, C.M. (2009), “Measuring cultural values at the individual-level: considering morality incross-cultural value research”, Revista De Administracao Mackenzie, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 60-83.

Wallace, J., Hunt, J. and Richards, C. (1999), “The relationship between organizational culture,organizational climate and managerial values”, The International Journal of Public SectorManagement, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 548-64.

Wan, C., Chiu, C.Y., Tam, K.P., Lee, S.I., Lau, I.Y.M. and Peng, S. (2007), “Perceivedcultural importance and actual self-importance of values in cultural identification”, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 337-54.

Zivko, T. (2006), “The economic-cultural context of the EU economies”, Kybernetes, Vol. 35Nos 7/8, pp. 1024-36.

Further reading

Elizur, D. and Sagie, A. (1999), “Facets of personal values: a structural analysis of life and workvalues”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 73-87.

Gursimsek, I. and Goregenli, M. (2005), “Humanistic attitudes, values, system justification andcontrol beliefs in a Turkish sample”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 34 No. 7,pp. 747-58.

Hofstede, G. (2000), “Organizational culture: siren or sea cow? A reply to Dianne Lewis?”,Strategic Change, Vol. 9, pp. 135-7.

Human Development Report (2007/2008), available at: www.hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ (accessed24 April 2008).

Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2006), “A quarter century of culture’s consequences:a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework”,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 285-320.

Sekaran, U. (2004), Research Methods for Business, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.

MRR34,9

1040

About the authorsMehmet Yusuf Yahyagil holds a PhD degree in Organizational Behavior. His main interest areasare organizational culture, climate, intercultural issues, and organizational creativity. He worksas an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Yeditepe University, Faculty ofEconomics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration.Mehmet Yusuf Yahyagil is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:yahyagil@yeditepe.edu.tr

Ayse Begum Otken holds a PhD degree in Organizational Behavior. Her main interest areasare leadership, fit studies, organizational culture, trust and mobbing. She is an AssistantProfessor of Organizational Behavior at Yeditepe University, Faculty of Economics andAdministrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration.

Cultural values

1041

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints